Mailing-List: contact dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of info@apachelounge.com
 designates 213.46.255.22 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <005d01c7e23c$fce83520$2128c23e@mother>
From: "Steffen" <info@apachelounge.com>
To: <dev@httpd.apache.org>,
	<Tom.Donovan@acm.org>
References: <46C76E04.1040907@rowe-clan.net>
 <001e01c7e1eb$312968b0$2128c23e@mother> <46C78135.9020301@rowe-clan.net>
 <000801c7e1f1$217656c0$2128c23e@mother> <46C78832.1070400@beamartyr.net>
 <46C7A10A.9030209@bellatlantic.net>
Subject: Re: Apachelounge problems
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 10:39:28 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> The angst over Steffen's build sounds a bit more territorial than legal 
> to me. Just my 2c worth...

Tom, indeed that is  my feeling : territorial.

There is more, see my next post about the Apache Feather I have to remove.

Steffen


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom Donovan" <donovant@bellatlantic.net>
To: <dev@httpd.apache.org>
Sent: Sunday, 19 August, 2007 03:46
Subject: Re: Apachelounge problems


> William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> 
> > doesn't belong on any external site.  Since it's not an ASF release,
> > *you* are absorbing all the liability and risk that any released ASF
> > package would carry.  It's an apachelounge release, so you would
> > personally answer to any IP issues.  Not smart.
> 
> Issac Goldstand wrote:
> > Steffen,
> >   I really don't see anything threatening by what Bill said.  On the
> ...
> > posting an RC without enough bells, whistles or warning lights
> > (regardless of how many notices you did put up about it being a RC and
> > not a release; they'll say it's a binary and who's looking, or
> 
> Maybe not threatening - but it is an eye-opener for some of us that the 
> Apache2 license protects "released" versions of Apache differently.
> 
> My (possibly faulty) understanding was that the whole "Redistribution" 
> and "Disclaimer of Warranty" parts applied to *any* Apache software - 
> even if it was built from today's bug-ridden head revision of the trunk, 
> and that it was  a solid and reliable protection from just the scenario 
> you describe.
> 
> The "you-must-build-it-yourself-from-source" rule to test a release 
> candidate probably isn't too much bother for Unix users, but many 
> Windows users look to a small number of "Windows builders" to build a RC 
> like Steffen's VC8 build so they can test what they expect to put into 
> production once the version is released (*if* it is released of course!)
> 
> I am certainly one of these.
> 
> The likelihood that Apache Lounge members would mistake Steffen's 2.2.5 
> build for a released version is no greater than all the many other 
> situations where unreleased versions of open-source software are 
> available.  Perhaps a first-time hobbyist experimenter might make this 
> mistake, but certainly not any professional admins.
> 
> The angst over Steffen's build sounds a bit more territorial than legal 
> to me. Just my 2c worth...
> 
> -tom-
>